Today sees the publication of the Third Report of Session 2013-14 of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, titled “Supporting the creative economy”. Having read the main part of the report, with a heavy heart at times, it seems to me that a better title for it would be “supporting the copyright lobby”.
The report can be found online here. I must stress that I have only read through the main report, not through the many pages of detailed evidence that accompanies it, and these are just a few initial thoughts, not a detailed academic analysis. I would also like to stress that I am commenting only on the sections on Intellectual Property – not the parts on Olympic and Paralympic legacy, Funding and finance and so forth.
Google as the enemy….
There are a few themes that shine through – and a two particular targets that the report takes significant pot-shots at. The first of these is Google – the report pulls few punches.
“We strongly condemn the failure of Google, notable among technology companies, to provide an adequate response to creative industry requests to prevent its search engine directing consumers to copyright-infringing websites. We are unimpressed by their evident reluctance to block infringing websites on the flimsy grounds that some operate under the cover of hosting some legal content.”
“We are deeply concerned that there is an underlying agenda driven at least partly by technology companies (Google foremost among them) which, if pursued uncritically, could cause irreversible damage to the creative sector on which the United Kingdom’s future prosperity will significantly depend.”
Now I’m not often a great fan of Google, but in this case I fall very much on their side of the debate. Regarding the first issue, to suggest that these grounds are ‘flimsy’ is deeply problematic: blocking any site from Google should be regarded as a big step. Access to information is a human right (part of Article 10 of the European Convention), so blocking legal information should never be undertaken lightly. Google knows this – and quite rightly resists the idea that it should block access to websites without due process. The use of the emotive term ‘flimsy’ in a report like this is unfortunate, to say the least.
As far as the second point is concerned, I am even more concerned. Many of those of us who oppose the current model of copyright enforcement don’t do so as a result of any ‘underlying agenda,’ let alone one driven by the likes of Google. We oppose the model because we believe that it isn’t working, that it suggests to many people – and particularly young people – that they are ‘bad’ or even ‘criminal’ without any real understanding of what they do and why. Much more than that, we oppose it precisely because we support the creative economy – we love music, movies and games, and want to find good, appropriate and effective ways to enjoy them. We want a new model – one that balances rights, and actually supports both the creators and consumers of content.
The other depressing theme in the report is the repeated undermining of the Hargreaves report – and indeed Professor Hargreaves himself. It feels almost as though Hargreaves is being dismissed because he produced the ‘wrong’ results – results that didn’t support the copyright lobby’s vision of how the world should work. One point, in paragraph 73, is particularly telling:
“We are not convinced by Hargreaves’ implication that a facility for private copying is factored into the purchase either of music or devices that store, play or copy it.”
Can I suggest that the committee spend a bit more time talking to young people about how they listen to music, play games or watch TV and movies? Perhaps even ask their own children, rather than just listen to the industry? That, indeed, is a depressing feature throughout the report – a seeming failure to understand how people actually consume content.
Is copyright working?
At one point (paragraph 68) the report says:
“We… …believe that generally the existing law works well.”
Really? And works well for whom? When I ask young people if they ever download music illegally, it’s a rare young person who doesn’t admit to it. When I ask them whether they think downloading music illegally is ‘wrong’, it’s a rare young person who, ultimately, believes that it IS wrong. It’s also very rare indeed for them to have been ‘caught’ for illegal downloading. Can you really say that a law that is regularly broken, is very widely considered appropriate and is rarely effectively enforced is ‘working’?
Supporting the creative economy?
Very often it seems to me that much of the creative economy is thriving despite copyright law, not because of copyright law. By pursuing this path, by almost obsessively believing in a legal system that is deeply flawed, the committee is itself in danger of causing damage to the creative economy.
Perhaps it is the whole way that they are approaching the issue that’s the problem. There is an inappropriate obsession with piracy – missing the increasing evidence that those who download illegally are also downloading legally. The report says:
“…millions of pounds are being lost by the creative industries..”
Why focus on the revenue that they think is lost, rather than the revenue that is being generated? It is a primary negative approach – instead of looking to punish ‘offenders’, shouldn’t the focus be on how to make more money? Find more, better and different revenue streams, rather than clinging onto old, outdated and ineffective ones?
The report is worried about an ‘underlying agenda driven at least partly by technology companies’ but seems to have completely ignored the much greater underlying agenda driven by the copyright lobby. If they really want to support the creative economy, they could do with starting with a good look in the mirror.
4 thoughts on “Supporting the creative economy?”
This is a great blog, and I will point at it when I write up my thoughts. That article will now be much shorter. Thanks. People also should check out Peter Bradwell’s comments at the ORG site.
Torrent Freak is covering Microsoft’s take down over reach which shows how much Google is doing to meet the demands of copyright holders. The argument they’re not is a piece of propaganda aimed at the Hargreaves Review and the reforms proposed which you correctly pick up.
As to to the role of the “Creative Industries” in the economy, their figures have always been dubious, we shouldn’t accept their statements, not the least because they calculate loss as their list price of product…it isn’t. I suggest you shouldn’t quote their figures without commenting on their sources. Peter’s article in particular talks about the Ofcom & IPO research which is neutrally funded, and seems to be under attack by the copyright industry. I think we know why.
What Peter said,
Thanks – and thanks for the link! When you look at how Google’s YouTube arm bends over backwards for the copyright lobby, it’s very hard to sustain the argument that they’re somehow fighting it.